Fortunato v. Murray

91 A.D.3d 947, 937 N.Y.2d 604
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 31, 2012
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 91 A.D.3d 947 (Fortunato v. Murray) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Fortunato v. Murray, 91 A.D.3d 947, 937 N.Y.2d 604 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

[948]*948The mother’s arguments concerning custody of the parties’ daughter have been rendered academic, as the daughter has reached the age of majority (see Almeda v Hopper, 2 AD3d 471 [2003]; Belsky v Belsky, 172 AD2d 576 [1991]; Berk v Berk, 170 AD2d 564, 565 [1991]).

Contrary to the mother’s contention, the Family Court’s denial of her petition to vacate an order awarding residential custody of the parties’ youngest son to the father or modify the order so as to award her residential custody had a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167 [1982]; Matter of Gant v Chambliss, 86 AD3d 612 [2011]). A review of the Family Court’s determination indicates that it gave careful consideration to all relevant factors (see Matter of Galanos v Galanos, 28 AD3d 554, 555 [2006]). Skelos, J.R, Dickerson, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Matter of Kripfgans v. Kripfgans
123 A.D.3d 930 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Yilmaz v. Yilmaz
119 A.D.3d 858 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Matter of Pechhioni v. Cusma
119 A.D.3d 589 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
91 A.D.3d 947, 937 N.Y.2d 604, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fortunato-v-murray-nyappdiv-2012.